Cessationism, Miracles, and Atheism: Understanding the Difference

For what seems like dozens of posts at this point, Steve Hays has criticized John MacArthur, Fred Butler, others, and myself for rejecting the modern claims by Charismatics that miracles workers still exist in the Church today. Steve has accused us of adopting the very same presuppositions employed by naturalistic atheists and skeptics in our reasoning. Perhaps some readers actually think Hays has a good point. After all, I realize that many of the young men at Triablogue are simply eager to follow someone they think is really, really smart. And it appears that Steve Hays is really, really smart. Richard Dawkins is really, really smart too, but he constructs some of the dullest arguments I have ever read. What I want to do in this post is point one, once again, the extraordinary fallacious nature of Hays’ accusation by pointing out where the differences rest between our argument and the argument from skepticism.

In order to get started, I want to quickly look at the skepticism of the famous empiricist, David Hume. Hume argued that there are two kinds of propositions: Relation of Ideas or Matters of Fact. The first set of propositions would include things like math while the second set would include all empirical knowledge, things known through the senses. Hume was convinced that all empirical knowledge was based on the relation of cause and effect. Now, this is far more complex than it might appear. My challenge is to simplify it at the risk of oversimplification. Because Hume denied God as the cause of all things we witness in the universe, and because he was an empiricist, he was forced to conclude that the human mind could never find the cause behind the event. Hume believed that all inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of reasoning. Hence, we know that fire burns through custom, not reason. The empiricist is unable to account for the uniformity of nature based solely on his empiricism. He cannot provide an adequate account for why the universe exists, empirically speaking that is. This is why Hume concluded that we have no empirical basis to believe that the Sun will rise tomorrow. Empiricism, by its very nature, has no predictive power.

Empiricism can in no way predict natural phenomena because it denies that true knowledge of the relationship between the general and the particular exists. Because miracles are events that are highly improbable, no one should believe reports that they actually occur. The issue comes down to one’s procedure for how they reason from the particular facts of experience to general truths. This is called induction. Hume’s skepticism is anchored in his empiricism. Because sooner or later, every inductive generalization presupposes a proposition that can never be proved (empirically speaking), it follows that logical justification for induction is impossible. Of course Hume is engaging in inductive skepticism in order to attack the enterprise of induction. The problem with Hume’s skepticism is his epistemological presupposition that all knowledge comes through the senses. Why Steve Hays knowingly associates the cessation argument with skepticism on any level is curious to say the least. One can only conclude that Hays really doesn’t understand Hume or the role of such presuppositions in one’s worldview or he uses these tactics deliberately. The former would be an indictment of gross ignorance while the latter an indictment of malevolence.

A second form of skepticism is rational skepticism popularized by Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677). Within this scheme, the argument against miracles contends that miracles are violations of natural laws. But natural laws are immutable. It is impossible to violate immutable natural laws. Therefore, miracles are impossible. But that is not what Christian theism believes, is it? The truth is that Montaigne is correct in that true knowledge is impossible in a vacuous empiricism or rationalism. The Epicureans and the Stoics were both wrong. The answer to Spinoza’s argument is easily discovered. It is wrong to think of the uniformity of nature as impersonal, natural laws. Christian theism rejects the idea that there is anything impersonal involved in the ordering of the universe from its beginning to its future end. Because it rejects impersonal natural laws, Christian theism embraces the view that the most minute activities in the universe are ordered and held together continually by the power of the omnipotent God revealed in Scriptures.

I now want to pick up Hume’s argument where we leave Spinoza. Hume argues that we simply don’t have enough reliable witnesses, of good moral character, who testify to a miraculous event. Hume also noted that human beings love bizarre tales. Finally, Hume notices that miracles are usually reported among unenlightened people groups. Hume’s issue with miracles has nothing to do with this arrogant and obnoxious cloak. Hume denies not just miracles, but the miraculous. Because the miraculous cannot exist in empiricism, it is necessary to explain these so-called miracles. This is Hume’s way of maintaining his empiricism. It is Hume doing what Paul said all unbelievers do: they suppress the knowledge of God within and around them.

Now, what Steve Hays attempts to do is extend Hume’s argument against human testimony to the cessationist. Hume argues that the particular reports of miracles should not be believed because these men have questionable character, or, they love the bizarre, or they are simply unenlightened. The skeptic argues that enlightened men should not believe in the highly improbable. Miracles are highly improbable and therefore, enlightened men should not believe that miracles occur.

You may be asking where Hays is wrong in his accusation that cessationists are skeptics in sheep’s clothing. Hays is wrong on several accounts. First of all, cessationism does not deny the possibility of modern miracles. We believe God can perform miracles today. In fact, when presented with the right kind of evidence, rather than rejecting a miracle claim and resorting to some far-fetched naturalistic explanation, we will rejoice that God has performed a miracle. Suppose a person was cured of terminal cancer. The skeptic would conclude that mistake took place in the diagnosis or that something strange had indeed taken place but the cause must have been naturalistic even if we don’t understand it. The believer will not resort to such outlandish and foolish explanations. The cessationist will rejoice in the Lord. But there is quite a long distance between believing that God performs miracles and that miracle workers are still present in the Church today. Hays continues to forget this basic distinction.

The skeptics’ worldview and hence his presuppositions are antichrist. They are set in opposition to God at every junction. Miraculous causes and supernatural effects are precluded out of hand and exchanged in preference for outrageous naturalistic rationalizations of all varieties. The cessationist insistence that the modern claim of miracles be examined for validity has nothing to do with belief in the possibility of the miracle. Instead, it has everything to do with biblical discernment, with truth, and with the public testimony of the Christian community. In short, it has to do with the reputation of Christ Himself in the world. The fact that we witness thousands and even millions of false reports of miracles and miracle workers, in the name of Christ is sufficient cause for the Church to establish a protocol for validating when God has actually performed something extraordinary. It is a dishonor to the Christian community and to men like Steve Hays when we not only sanction, but facilitate hundreds of millions of Pentecostals and Charismatics making false and outrageous claims about the God of Scripture across the globe. False reports of miracle workers insult, defame, and scandalize the Christ we claim to know, to love, and to serve with all our heart, soul, mind, and body. What Steve Hays calls skeptics in sheep’s clothing, we call biblical discernment. 

Tanzania: 'Corpse Raising' Preacher Yet to Perform Miracle

I can raise the dead

Arusha — ALL roads in Arusha seem to be leading to the Railway Station grounds where Pastor Josephat Gwajima is conducting a large meeting where he boasts to be able to 'raise the dead!"

The Dar es Salaam based cleric, set camp here last Friday intending to preach in the City for two weeks. "There is nothing strange or weird in raising the dead, it is very clearly stated in the Bible right from the Old to the New Testament," said Mr Gwajima and revealed a testimony in which he claimed to have so far brought back to life 450 'dead' persons in his resurrection portfolio.

To substantiate the claims, Pastor Gwajima paraded four alleged 'zombies' on stage, people who professed to have died years ago but came back to the land of the living after being prayed for.

He ordered the 'living dead' to speak for themselves and challenged anybody who still does not believe to purchase a DVD on sale.

Pastor Gwajima says; "I do not oppose people dying, it is just that nobody should face premature death through witchcraft or other dubious causes," he stated, adding that people should die at the age of 70 and not younger than that and certainly not through the forces of darkness.

Tens of thousands of Arusha residents have flocked to Pastor Gwajima's crusade rally, many vowing to test the preacher's claims of raising people from the dead by submitting names of newly deceased friends and relatives at the meeting.

"This is my first ever open-air rally to be held in Tanzania and I am starting the trend in Arusha before moving to Kilimanjaro, Tanga, Mwanza, Morogoro, Dodoma, Iringa and other regions," said Pastor Gwajima.

For years, Pastor Gwajima, though based in Dar, has been preaching mostly in overseas countries of Europe, United States and Asia.

"My preaching is not for self-enrichment," maintained Pastor Gwajima, boasting to be the wealthiest church minister in the country, "I am the only pastor who owns helicopter," he said and to attest the fact he drove into the venue in a flashy red Hummer which was escorted by a high-end Toyota Land-cruiser VX, among other trendy vehicles.

Now, based on Steve Hays' arguments, what can we say? I suppose that we have to accept these claims at face value or else we are borrowing methods from skeptics and atheists. But then again, we are talking about someone that seems to be drifting more and more into the bizarre with his openness to paranormal activities, muslim dreams and visions about Jesus bringing the gospel to them, and who knows what else. This man presented four people that claimed to be dead for years, not days. And he supposedly raised them from the dead. Apparently you are not supposed to die before age 70 and if you do, he can raise you from the dead. Not only that, but any Christian should be able to do this, according to Gwajima.

When you compromise on Sola Scriptura, and you permit just about any hermeneutical method to enter the camp, it becomes nearly impossible to stop the flow of rancid, putrid dogmas and ideas that enter the community passing themselves off as biblical, or cutting edge, or fresh ideas. The modern American mind is full of itself and it is so without good cause! Regrettably, this pattern of thinking fills the ranks of the young and the restless who view the sacred teachings of the Church as just one more toy to be revised, updated, revamped and called their own.

The Pagan Problem of Pentecostal - Charismatic Tongues

Chrysostom writing as early as the 380s, just 300 years after Paul’s correspondence to the Corinthians says this in his comments on 1 Cor. 14:2:

“At this point he makes a comparison between the gifts, and lowers that of the tongues, showing it to be neither altogether useless, nor very profitable by itself. For in fact they were greatly puffed up on account of this, because the gift was considered to be a great one. And it was thought great because the Apostles received it first, and with so great display; it was not however therefore to be esteemed above all the others. Wherefore then did the Apostles receive it before the rest? Because they were to go abroad every where. And as in the time of building the tower the one tongue was divided into many; so then the many tongues frequently met in one man, and the same person used to discourse both in the Persian, and the Roman, and the Indian, and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him: and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak divers languages. See accordingly how he both depresses and elevates it. Thus, by saying, “He that speaketh with tongues, speaketh not unto men, but unto God, for no man understandeth,” he depressed it, implying that the profit of it was not great; but by adding, “but in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries,” he again elevated it, that it might not seem to be superfluous and useless and given in vain.”^[1]

It is clear that Chrysostom considered the Corinthian Glossolalia genuine human languages as opposed to the claim that it was some sort of mystical prayer language. This view is in direct contradiction to widespread view in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles. For the remainder of this article, I will focus on some of the more significant problems with the claim that modern tongue speaking is identical to the Corinthian Glossolalia.

In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual.^[2]

Now I should mention that the phrase “do also hear” literally means, “have heard.” We cannot be sure that Irenaeus of Lyons is speaking about a firsthand contemporary account or something he heard about from history or from other communities. What we can be sure of is that he calls them languages just as Chrysostom did.

Now, I want to point to the historical fact that mystical tongue-speaking like that spoken among modern Charismatics did not originate in and is not unique to the Charismatic community. The practice of mystical-glossolalia, so called, exists in other religions, such as Paganism, Shamanism, and other mediumistic type religions. In fact, channeling has been one of the egregious next steps that can easily be traced to the roots of Charismatic theology. It is the natural progression of mystical emphases. Suffice it to say that modern Charismatic tongues are not unique to the Charismatic version of Christianity. They are shared by several other religions. That this could be true and that Paul teaches that tongues are a sign for unbelievers remains an irreconcilable mystery. What is so amazing about a phenomenon that is commonly practiced among other religions? How could such a thing be a sign in any sense of the word sign? If other religions were experiencing the same miraculous phenomena as Christianity, then Christianity would be illogical to point to such phenomena as a distinguishing feature of its religion.

The heretic Montanus is documented by Eusebius as having some kind of ecstatic experience. Here is how he records it: “He became possessed of a spirit, and suddenly began to rave in a kind of ecstatic trance, and to babble in a jargon, prophesying in a manner contrary to the custom of the Church which had been handed down by tradition from the earliest times.” Hildegard of Bingen, a Catholic mystic, is said to have spoken in tongues. The LDS Church has numerous historical events of speaking in tongues. Brigham Young spoke in tongues at the dedication of the Kirkland Temple. The Moravians are also said to have spoken in tongues. Oneness Pentecostals, who deny the triune God, speak in tongues. Appalachian snake-handlers speak in tongues. In fact, it was not until the late 19^th and early 20^th century that glossolalia become associated with Pentecostalism.

Most Pentecostals recognize Charles Parham as the leader through whom God brought the renewal of the gifts. Parham was so excited about this new move of God that he declared the movement would send out missionaries around the world to declare the gospel in their respective languages. So, as it goes, the founder of modern Pentecostalism also thought they were speaking in known languages. The idea of the speech was entirely unintelligible never crossed his mind. However, when associate A.G. Garr traveled to India to preach the gospel, he was extremely confused when he found out the Indian people could not understand his gibberish.

Now, in addition to Parham’s misguided optimism, there was a host of other, far more serious problems with Parham’s theology. Parham believed in the annihilation of the damned in hell. He believed in two separate creations. He held that Adam and Eve were a different race from us. Parham claimed that men living before the flood did not have souls. What is amazing is that even Charles Parham condemned, in no uncertain terms, the Asuzu St. Revival to which most Pentecostal denominations trace their origin.

In addition to these facts, there is the issue of William Samarin, a linguist from the University of Toronto. In 1972, Samarin published a study containing the results of his intensive research into the phenomena of modern tongues. He study uncovered several stunning facts that many continuationists and Charismatics ignore to this day. His study covered groups like the Appalachian Pentecostals that practice snake-handing, groups in Italy, Canada, Jamaica, and even the Netherlands. What did he discover?

·         While glossolalia resembles a language in certain ways, it is not a real language. It only resembles a language because the speaker wants it to.

·         The sounds are taken from sets of sounds already known to the speaker.

·         The sounds of speech of Glossolalia reflected the speech of the individual’s native language. In other words, English speaks speak in English syllables, Russian speakers in Russian and so forth.

·         In her book, Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study in Glossolalia, Felicitas Goodman studied a number of Pentecostal communities in the US, the Caribbean, and Mexico. These groups spoke English, Spanish, and Mayan. She compared what she found in these recordings with non-Christian groups she studied from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia, and Japan. Her conclusion was there was no distinction between what was practiced in the Pentecostal communities and what was practiced in the non-Christian communities.

Paul’s concerns in 1 Corinthians 14 had to do with how the gift was inappropriately being used in the Church service. It seems that the Corinthians were operating in this gift arrogantly. Apparently, they held the gift in high esteem likely because it was the first one received by the Apostles at Pentecost. At any rate, Paul’s concerns are for the edification of the body of Christ. It should not slip one’s notice that nowhere does Paul say that tongues are for the purpose of edifying the speaker. He never says that tongues are for the purpose of speaking to God, not men. However, he does say that tongues are given for a sign to the unbeliever. Now, that sentence is a purpose sentence as opposed to some of the other sentences that are simply statements.

Pentecostals interpret 1 Cor. 14:2 as if it means that tongues are for the purpose of speaking to God not men. They insist that men must be taken in a universal sense. But when we read that text in the context of Paul’s concerns around edification and then in the broader context of the meaning of glossolalia, we realize a different interpretation works much better. We realize Paul is not actually saying this is how it should be or even that it is a good thing. We realize that men must be understood as men in the local Church service. We also realize that the reason the person is speaking only to God is because no one in the Church service understands the language, therefore, only God could be the hearer.

In addition, I think we need to examine what Paul means when he uses the word οἰκοδομέω, oikodomeo, which is translated edify. This word carries the sense of enablement. It means to build up or enable, to increase one’s potential. Paul then links one’s understanding of the language to its ability to edify. In other words, Paul says the reason he does not want the Corinthians to use tongues in the Church service is because they do not edify those who do not understand them. He also says if a person prays in tongues and does not understand the language they are speaking, their own understanding is fruitless. This must mean that when Paul says that praying in tongues edifies the individual, that the individual understands the language he prays in. So there is praying in tongues that is edifying because one understands it, and praying in tongues that is not fruitful, and therefore not edifying, because the speaker does not understand it. It is as this point that we must remember that this phenomenon was remarkably different from anything we have ever experienced and therefore, our understanding of exactly what was going on remains somewhat limited.

Paul tells the Corinthians emphatically and with great clarity that tongues are a sign for unbelievers. This word sign has bound up in it the idea of miracle. If an unbeliever is aware of the pagan practice of ecstatic and unintelligible noises in the practice of their religions, how could the very same practice with the very same sound distinguish the Christian practice as something supernatural? Clearly, gibberish in religious worship, be it pagan, or in the Christian service does not meet the definition of a miraculous sign.

In conclusion then, l want to make the following observations:

·         Tongues in Acts 2, 8, 10, 19, and 1 Cor. 12-14 were actual languages given supernaturally to those who spoke them.

·         Pagan religions were practicing ecstatic gibberish prior to the Christian experience at Pentecost.

·         Paul states that the purpose for tongues was to provide a miraculous sign to unbelievers. Unintelligible gibberish fails to meet the standard of miracle.

·         Simon, even though he witnessed Phillip’s miracles, only offered money to have the ability to impart this particular gift of tongues. That he would have offered money for gibberish and not other miracles is simply untenable.

·         Modern tongues have their root in leaders that held to damnable heresies.

·         Modern tongues are the same gibberish spoken by various other non-Christian and pagan religions.

·         Modern tongues are bits and pieces of the respective language of the speaker. Russian Charismatics speak in Russian tongues, English in English, Spanish in Spanish and so forth.

·         If modern tongues were heavenly languages, there would be no association with one’s native language and linguistic studies would be able to capture the very same sounds across language families. There is no reason to think that heaven has more than one language. The reason humans have multiple languages is due to the curse of sin at Babel.

The fact is that Pentecostals and Charismatics have no objective way of knowing if the tongues they speak are the same one's spoken in Scripture. The practice disappeared for centuries. There is no unbroken succession of tongues-speaking from Pentecost to today. Since PC tongues are not actual languages, the PC movement has no criteria by which they can distinguish fake or demonic tongues from biblical tongues assuming they're theology is correct. In fact, they can't even validate if the other person, any other person has the same gift they do or if that person is faking it because they are limited to experience in their validation of the practice. If Benny Hinn is a charlatan, then his tongue must be fake! But there are millions of Charismatics that claim Hinn is a great man of God. Therefore, his tongues are genuine! How could we ever know? It is an array of confusion and chaos and the truth is, given their own theology, the possibility of discernment is virtually impossible. And that, ladies and gentlemen makes it abundantly clear that it cannot be of divine origin. Any practice that cannot be tested, that creates confusion and chaos, and that eliminates the possibility of discernment cannot be biblical.

---

^[1] John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians,” ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Hubert Kestell Cornish, John Medley, and Talbot B. Chambers, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series: Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 208–209.

^[2] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 531.

Endowed With The Gifts of The Spirit – The Fruit of Pentecostal Charismatic Theology

I want to accomplish a couple of objectives in this post. First, I want to refute Adrian Warnock’s misrepresentation of John MacArthur’s view regarding the Pentecostal/Charistmatic Theological (PCT) parasite that lives in the visible Church. Second, I want to spend some time talking about the most serious theological error that I believe characterizes PCT. By now you are probably aware that Patheos has posted a public criticism of John MacArthur concerning his own criticism of Pentecostal-Charismatic Theology (PCT). The article was written by Andrian Warnock. I will provide a few very brief comment about his reason simply because it is obviously fallacious that it only requires a few remarks.

Andrian’s rebuttal essentially comes down to two things: PCT is growing at a maddening pace, and we are bigger than the other components of evangelicalism once you step out of the Western world. Warnock writes, “The Charismatics and Pentecostals are acknowledged by experts to be proliferating like no other previous movement in history. It seems to me that the movement contains many vibrant, faith-filled people who have a deep trust in God, a sense of a relationship with God, and a strong desire to share the gospel.” Apparently, Warnock is oblivious to the fact that this statement has absolutely no bearing on the question concerning whether or PCT is actually biblical or not. In order to determine if a movement is a biblical movement, we must compare its teachings with the Bible, not with its growth rate. Mormonism’s growth rate was extraordinary as well. Does that mean it teaches Christian truth?

Warnock continues, “Outside of the West the Charismatic and Pentecostal Movement dominates the Evangelical church. Whether you are Charismatic or not yourself, I hope you agree that these hundreds of millions of people are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and that we share in salvation together as one Body.” This is a fascinating statement. I think Jesus addresses it with these words, “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ (Matt. 7:22-23) It seems clear to me that professions and numbers, regardless of their passion or sincerity to size are not substitutes for genuine Christianity. Warnock’s rebuttal fails to achieve its goal by a long shot.

John MacArthur is offended that PCT adherents claim to experience the work of the Holy Spirit in their movement. The reason this claim offends Dr. MacArthur and should offend anyone filled with the Spirit is that these experiences have continually and, steadily produced a stream of one false teaching after another. It is more than just a little disturbing when you hear PCT adherents claim that the NT gifts are still present and still needed in the modern Church when the people laying unique claim to those gifts continually line up in support of men who are false teachers and prophets; Men who claim to heal the sick and even raise the dead. What has the PCT movement given the Church since its inception back in the late 1800s to early 1900s? What is the fruit of this self-professing Spirit-filled movement? Let’s take a look to see what she has contributed to the modern Church.

We can begin with Katheryn Kuhlman. This was a woman preacher, something that is very common in PCT circles, who traveled around claiming to heal people miraculously. Having been interviewed and obtaining names and addresses of several people (23+) that Kuhlman claimed to have healed, one Dr. Nolan discovered that not a single miracle had taken place. One woman who was supposedly cured of spinal cancel through her brace away and ran across stage, experienced the collapse of her spine the next day. She died four months later. But the attendees would never hear the rest of the story. In their minds Kuhlman was a great miracle worker from God. Many people don’t know that Kuhlman had a proclivity for the flamboyant lifestyle. She liked expensive things. In addition, she was married to an evangelist who had divorced his wife for the purpose of marrying Kuhlman.

Aimee Semple McPherson had a strong influence on Kuhlman and others in the PC camp. She too was a traveling faith healer. Few people know, however, that McPherson faked her own kidnapping in 1926 to carry on an adulterous affair. It was this event that led to her founding the International Church of the Four-Square Gospel. McPherson died of an overdose of barbiturates. Again, few people realize this about McPherson. Kuhlman had significant influence on Benny Hinn and John Arnott while McPherson influenced Hinn as well.

Another PCT figure, AA Allen, claimed to perform hundreds and thousands of miracles and healings in his ministry. He claimed he could turn one-dollar bills into twenties. He sold anointed prayer cloths. He offered “Miracle Tent” shavings as points of contact for miracles. He actually started a “raise the dead” campaign at one time. It ended when his disciples refused to bury their departed and their departed refused to come back to life. Allen died from cirrhosis of the liver. He had received DUI after a miracle crusade in Tenn. This is one of many alcohol-related incidents. He was an embarrassment to the ministry and to the Christian Church.

I could go on and on about men like Oral Roberts, W.V. Grant, Jr., The Kansas City Prophets, John Wimber, Randy Clark, Paul Crouch, Jack Coe, Paul Cain, William Branham, John Avanzini, John Arnott, Benny Hinn, Ken Copeland, Ken Hagin, Fred Price, Marilyn Hickey, Pat Robertson, Robert Tilton, Earnest Angsley, John Wimber, The Vineyard Movement, The Laughing Revival, Rodney Howard Brown, The Toronto Blessing, The Brownsville Revival, Jim Bakker, and so forth. The list could go on and on and on. These men and women are false prophets, false teachers, teaching false doctrines for the purpose of material gain. All of them speak in tongues and claim to possess the same gifts of the Spirit that existed in the NT Church. This list is literally a tiny fraction of prominent names from among prominent names.

Now, here is the response you will hear from defenders of PCT. They will claim that ALL these men and women are the abusers. They are not indicative of PCT in general. And that, ladies and gentlemen is a dishonest argument. If it were not for the support and endorsement of the overwhelming majority of PCT churches, the movement in general, these men and women could never have risen to the levels of success they experienced. The fact that I have only listed a few indicates that these practices and teachers are prevalent within the Charismatic movement. Of course there can be small pockets here and there that may see these leaders as the abuser that they are. But that is the whole point. Such small pockets do not represent the majority of the movement.

Now, I want to turn your attention of the false teachings that have been the fruit of most PCT (Pentecostal-Charismatic Theology). The most obvious teaching among PCT is the notion of individual-personal-experiential revelation. This is the view, embraced by an overwhelming majority of PCT adherents that God is still actively giving revelation to the individual and even the Church. PCT adherents often make a big deal out their dreams, continually looking for spiritual meaning and messages from God. The focus is more than a little odd; it can be downright bizarre. The PCT adherent believes that God speaks to them often, through an inner voice that only they can hear. This inner voice provides very specific guidance in their lives around issues like careers, marriage, divorce, even, and things like relocation, and even interpreting Scripture. The goal, from my perspective is to know the hidden will of God, that will which is not revealed in Scripture. Moreover, there is a spiritual pride associated with this practice. The idea that God spoke to me and told me something is lauded as an indication that this person is very close to God. There is a power-factor that immediately surrounds such people. Essentially, this view inadvertently denies the sufficiency and efficiency of Scripture. This is by no means a small issue.

PCT embraces a view of salvation and atonement that is really quite different from that taught in Scripture and expressed by historic Christianity. Many Pentecostals believe that if you die immediately after sinning that you suffer eternal damnation because sin cannot enter the Kingdom. They reject the view that all sin, past, present, and future are forgiven in Christ. They teach that the security of the believer is conditioned upon the actions of the believer. Essentially, truly born again regenerate people can and do suffer eternal judgment in PCT.

Pentecostals teach that a person can be saved but not filled with the Holy Spirit. Some actually teach that sanctification is also a separate work of grace. In that system a person is regenerated, then subsequently sanctified, and then finally filled with or baptized in the Holy Spirit. The evidence that one has been filled with the Spirit is speaking in tongues. If you do not speak with tongues, you are not filled with the Spirit.

Pentecostal worship is also quite different from historic Christianity. PCT adherents encourage their congregations to get in or enter the Spirit as they begin to worship. In most Pentecostal services, the goal is to impart some emotional experience that they call worshipping in the Spirit. I once had an Assembly of God pastor tell me that he knew when someone was dancing in the Spirit because people who did such in the flesh would get tired. The notion of “dancing in the Spirit” is nowhere found in Scripture. Another feature of Pentecostal worship is the practice of being “slain in the Spirit.” This happens when a preacher lays hands on you and you fall down. Again, nothing like this is ever witnessed or taught in Scripture. Another phenomenon is being “drunk in the Spirit.” This happens when people get so emotional that they just begin to stagger around the church and fall down, and basically behave like a bunch of drunks. A more recent phenomenon was the laughing revival. Supposedly the Spirit comes on people and they begin to laugh hysterically. If you have ever witnessed this phenomenon as a true Christian, you can’t help but feel like Satan is using it to blaspheme and profane true Christian worship. It is about as heinous a practice as I have ever seen associated with Christianity. There is nothing Christian about it.

I could go on and on about all the serious errors and even heresies that exist in PCT. I think you get the point. The errors touch the nature of divine revelation and Scripture, the believer’s relationship to the Holy Spirit, salvation, the atonement, worship and more. I am sure that defenders of PCT will respond by calling these abuses. However, the fact remains that these so-called abuses are the very behaviors, practices, and beliefs that have come to define PCT over the short 100+ years of its existence. In the second place, I am curious just how it is that PCT adherents distinguish the abuse of a gift from the proper exercise of a gift. Is it abuse when someone runs circles around the Church yelling glory at the top of their lungs or is it the power of the Holy Spirit? We hear the word abuse quite a lot. What we need to see is the criteria by which abuses are identified so that we can interact with it. So far, I have not seen anyone in PCT publish such a list. In addition, the radically autonomous nature of most PCT churches makes genuine consensus nearly impossible. What one PCT writer says is abuse, 10 others claim is no abuse at all.

In summary, if it is true that the PCT movement is actually endowed with the NT gifts, it seems that the gifts not only don’t help avoid error and sin at all. If anything, the presence of the gifts seem to have a very high correlation with serious error and even heresy. One would expect just the opposite. I would expect a true movement endowed with the true gifts to see a high correlation with truth, with very low instances of error, of moral failure, of materialism.

Here is the list of PCT heroes: Katheryn Kuhlman, Amie Semple McPherson, Oral Roberts, W.V. Grant, Jr., The Kansas City Prophets, John Wimber, Randy Clark, Paul Crouch, Jack Coe, Paul Cain, William Branham, John Avanzini, John Arnott, Benny Hinn, Ken Copeland, Ken Hagin, Fred Price, Marilyn Hickey, Pat Robertson, Robert Tilton, Earnest Angsley, John Wimber, Rodney Howard Brown, Jim and Tammy Bakker, Reinhard Bonnke, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, Gloria Copeland, T.D. Jakes, and so forth. Is it a coincidence that every personality in this list also has a very high attraction to and interest in materialistic gain? What these false teachers require to be successful is a movement of people that endorses them, agrees with their teachings, and supports them financially. This movement is the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement. While it is true that there are small elements, tiny actually, that view these men correctly as false teachers, the truth remains that such elements are small, uncommon, and not the norm.

The typical PCT adherent will accept, approve, and support many if not most and all the names in this list. What is sorely needed in PCT is for someone to specifically dig into the beliefs and, practices of the movement, and gain consensus on what is abuse and what is not abuse. Perhaps then we can have a conversation about the conclusions as well as the criteria. Until such criteria is in place, those of us who are not PCT adherents are left to qualify our comments as addressing the movement as a whole with the understanding that some within the movement may not be as guilty of error as the movement itself. 

Suffice it to say that it is indeed an egregious error to claim that something is the work of the Holy Spirit when in fact that work is used to issue false prophecies, make false claims about being Spirit-filled, pretend that healings and miracles are regular occurrences, and to line the pockets of false teachers with millions of dollars so that they can build empires and live lavish lifestyles all in the name of Jesus. If anything, the PCT defenders that claim that there are abuses in these practices should simply say amen and pronounce their public shame rather than defending them. After all, the PCT movement as a whole has made a mockery of Christianity with its prosperity gospel, its pseudo-tongues, its false claims about the miraculous, its visions and dreams, its radical focus on the experiential, and its obsession with the material. It is only because we care about the Church and about the testimony of our Lord that we make such public criticisms of a movement that does nothing but create scandal after scandal for the Christian community.

Daniel Wong's Testimony: A Biblical Perspective of Providence and Inner Promptings

Perhaps this will help others recognize what it is "MacArthurites" really think about God's providence and immanence in the world and in the lives of His people and one small way he accomplishes His purpose in the earth.

Distinctions in Prophets or Prophecy and Revelation: Discussions with Hays

The saga continues with Steve Hays over at Triablogue on the subject of Pentecostal theology, revelations, and our ramblings on other matters. It is clear that Steve and I do not agree on these issues. In a recent blog, Steve introduced some new points that I think most people are likely to have a couple of questions on.

To support his claim that there is a distinction in the nature of prophecies, Hays refers us to Numbers 12:6-9. Hays explicitly tells us that this text was written to instruct us on the differences in Prophetic revelation and utterances. He says there is a broad distinction between verbal and visionary revelation. Hays further breaks down the visionary revelations into representational and allegorical visions. In addition, says Hays, “Allegorical visions employ figurative imagery. That makes them somewhat enigmatic.” It appears that Hays is telling us that God’s revelation to His prophets can be ambiguous, unclear.

The context of Numbers 12 is extremely important if we are to rightly understand what is taking place there. The whole point in Numbers 12 is one of sole authority. Moses had married a Cushite woman and his siblings, Aaron and Miriam did not approve. They both spoke against God’s prophet and God Himself convened a special conference between the three of them. The purpose of this conference was to point out the distinct calling, role, and relationship God had in Moses. The purpose of the meeting had nothing to do with different modes of revelation. It was all about the difference between Moses and all the rest of the prophets. Note that the rest of the prophets, except for Christ the prophet like unto Moses, are in the same category. Hays lifts this text out of its proper context in order to prop up a position that Scripture really does not prop up itself. This shows that if there is a distinction between OT prophets and NT prophets, Hays must look elsewhere to establish it. I wonder if Hays considers John the Baptist an OT prophet. Surely he was one.

Hays then asserts that judging prophecies in the NT was quite different from judging them in the OT. This is no doubt true. However, I am not sure that Deut. 18:15-22 is the best text to compare with 1 Cor. 14:29 given its Messianic nature. Nevertheless, we expect there to be differences between the consequences of false prophecies given the fact that they were under two different covenants. The concept of judging any prophetic utterances is present in both texts. Secondly, we cannot ignore the fact that prophetic utterances in the NT were not always predictive in nature. Hence, judging such prophecies would take on a different standard. Nevertheless, if a NT prophecy happened to be predictive, why would we expect judging the integrity of such a prophecy to be any different from one in the OT? Hays does not provide any exegetical or rational justification for his position.

Hays then accuses me of being egalitarian by attempting to connect Philip’s prophesying daughters with apostolic authority. Apparently, because I believe that God’s word is binding and authoritative regardless of who said it, that means that I somehow collapse the biblical principle of male leadership. I confess that this point is difficult to take seriously. It doesn’t matter if the Devil himself passed on a word that was actually God’s word, it would absolutely be no less authoritative and binding. The authority of Scripture or revelation does not rest in the apostolic office. It rests in God Himself. That Philip had four virgin daughters that prophesied is very interesting, but we know very little about the details of this situation. God deliberately made the decision not to give us more facts around this piece of history. Nevertheless, Hays statement that I am egalitarian because of my views regarding OT and NT prophets being without any material difference is just that, a statement. It is not an argument and it does not contain an argument. The fact remains that when anyone brings us the Word of the Lord, that Word is authoritative not because of the one bringing it, but because of what it is by nature, the Word of the Lord.

Finally, Hays points us back to Agabus, arguing that several scholars “defend the veracity of Agabus.” I have responded to Hays’s reference to Agabus already. Apparently he has refused to consider my view. Perhaps he will hear Polhill’s comments, “This was not so much a warning on Agabus’s part as a prediction. Unlike the Christians of Tyre, he did not urge Paul not to go. Rather, he told him what was in store for him. This was all the more certain when one considers the nature of such prophetic acts in the Old Testament. The act itself set into motion the event it foretold. It established the reality of the event, the certainty that it would occur. Agabus’s act prepared Paul for the events to come and assured him of God’s presence in those events.” [Polhill, NAC, Acts] There is no reason to think that Agabus was counseling or advising Paul against going to Jerusalem. That is an unjustified imposition on the text.

In summary, Hays’s categories for prophecy, while interesting and intellectually stimulating fail to find support in the text. Numbers 12 has been wrenched out of context and used to support an argument it was clearly not intended to support. The subject was the distinct nature of God’s relationship and use of His servant Moses.

Second, the Word of God is not infused with authority by the apostles. It is exactly the opposite. My use of Scripture no more entitles me to apostolic or eldership authority any more than it would have Philip’s daughters. Hays’s egalitarian charge is reduced to absurdity.

Last, Hays’s interpretation of Agabus is far wide of the mark. There is nothing in the text to suggest that Agabus was issuing advice, counsel or even a warning. Luke records this event and the words of Agabus as a straightforward prophecy in a very similar fashion to OT prophecies. Any attempt to say that Paul played fast and loose with Agabus prophetic utterance is a gross misunderstanding and misreading of a text that is fairly easy to interpret as far as I can tell.

The back and forth of this discussion is not necessarily a bad thing. Healthy, respectful dialogue on subjects like this in the Spirit of Christian charity and out of a concern for Christian truth and within the confines of the Christian ethic can be extremely productive. I am a bit uneasy about the tone of these discussions. I especially worry about my tone. I know my passion for truth can sometimes come across as proud and arrogant. And no doubt, I am guilty of those dispositions at times. In our passion for Christian truth, we sometimes forget that our first aim is to serve our Christian brothers and sisters. Our goal, after all, is to convince others of the truth that we are convinced us because we think it is in their best interest to embrace it and because it honors our Lord. We do little to advance the Christian message when our desire to win an argument eclipses our sincere love for each other and for God’s truth. Not only is the Christian community looking on to see how we treat one another, so too is the world. 

Pentecostal Claims, Biblical Discernment, and the Nature of Evidence: Another Response to Steve Hays

i) Notice how Ed's knee-jerk skepticism about testimonial evidence repristinates the position of Hume and his followers. Yet the Bible places great stock in the value of eyewitness testimony.

ii) Ed acts as though you can only assume one of two attitudes towards testimonial evidence: blind credulity or reflexive incredulity. He acts as though every witness is equally trustworthy or equally untrustworthy. But there are standard criteria for sifting testimonial evidence. 

This is one of the basic problems besetting some members of the MacArthur circle. Their cessationism commits them to radical skepticism regarding the possibility of historical knowledge. They're like the minimalist school in Biblical archeology (e.g. Hector Avalos). That's what happens when you adopt a purely reactionary posture. 

Steve raises a legitimate question on the nature of evidence. After all, evidence is an important component of any claim to true knowledge. Does it follow that a call for rigorous examination of testimonial evidence for modern signs and wonders is parallel to Humean skepticism? Is Hays right to conclude that the Bible would place great stock in the value of these sorts of testimonies coming from the Charismatic/Pentecostal camps? Let’s answer this first charge before moving on to the others.

David Hume was an empiricist and a skeptic. Hume’s non-Christian worldview coupled with his philosophical empiricism led him to skepticism. The basic problem with empiricism is it’s self-referential incoherence. When I say that all knowledge comes through the senses, I am required in the first place to be omniscient and in the second place to show how this specific knowledge came through my senses. Hume’s empiricism is one more worldview that cannot establish the preconditions necessary for the intelligibility of human experience. Chance plus empiricism equals skepticism and irrationalism in every case. Is this the kind of skepticism we display when we insist that empirical claims of signs and wonders must be tested empirically as well as exegetically? I do not think any objective reader of these Ping-Pong blogs would agree. In the first place, my skepticism is not a knee-jerk reaction. Hays is forgetting that I spent years in this stuff and was a blind advocate of these phenomena for some time. My position is anything but a knee-jerk. The old saying, “been there, done that” applies in my situation. That rules out the possibility of any knee-jerk reaction on my part.

Second, does the Bible place as much stock in eyewitness testimony as Hays implies? Numbers 35:30 points out that one witness of a murder is considered insufficient for capital punishment. This is again reaffirmed in Deut. 19:15. A single witness is simply not enough to bring a man to judgment for his iniquity. Scripture is replete with the need for multiple witnesses. Even Jesus Himself said, If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true (Jn. 5:31) It seems clear then that a single eyewitness testimony was always viewed as insufficient where Scripture is concerned. In addition, eyewitness testimony is only as reliable as the witness giving it, is credible. What we are saying is that we have had enough false reports by faith healers and miracle workers and we have, to my knowledge, no verifiable credible reports from them that we cannot help but begin on skeptical ground, so far as empirical testing is concerned. Given enough of Benny Hinn’s failed prophecies and it only seems reasonable that one would probably be wise to pay little attention to that man as soon as his lips begin moving. How many professed faith healers and miracles workers do we have to show to be frauds before we establish the view that when a man comes along making the same claims that dozens of frauds before him have made, that he is likely one of these fellows given that he has so much in common with them. That Hays would buy into the manufactured nonsense that modern prophets are different that ancient prophets and that false prophecy today is viewed by God differently than it was in ancient times is most outrageous and egregious. Such foolishness destroys any rational and biblical standard for discernment. While Satan is very pleased to create a framework where discernment is impossible, such a state of affairs is contrary to Christian theism at its most basic levels.

In addition, and for the record, cessationists do not assert that healings or miracles are beyond the pale of possibility. We admit that they can and sometimes they do occur. We glorify God for his marvelous grace and mercy when He heals the sick and injured. What we assert is that there is no credible or reliable evidence to suggest that genuine “faith healers” and “miracle workers” are walking among us in contemporary times. Not only does the empirical evidence support our conclusion, but biblical exegesis shows this to be the case as well.

I agree with Hays that there are criteria for sifting the evidence to support empirical claims of signs and wonders. We need credible eyewitnesses, and we need more than one. That would be helpful. The report needs to contain the details of the miracle that took place. These details need to disclose the person’s name and the ability of some credible investigator to examine the case. The person must have been certified to have this condition by a doctor or multiple credible witnesses familiar with the person. We must be able to rule out natural explanations for the cure. The condition must be demonstrable. A physician must certify that the person no longer has the condition. In order for this kind of testimony to support that there is in fact a “faith healer” among us, we require a number of stories just like this one and that such stories surround this person’s ministry and life as a matter of routine. If we could get to this point, we could at least make some progress. But like a plane with far too great a payload, she flies down the runway but never leaves the ground. So it is with these arguments and claims for modern faith healers and miracles workers. Claim upon claim is accompanied by one obscure story after another, lacking just those components necessary for reliability and credibility. Craig Keener writes a book, but in the process fails to seal the deal by leaving out precisely those things we desperately to need to put a punctuation mark at the end of the story!

Does this process for verifying miraculous claims in the name of Jesus Christ really place those who make it in the position of radical skepticism when it comes to historical knowledge? I think that such a statement is more than a little extreme. Is it true that I must accept the claims of every Charismatic faith healer I see on TV if I am to avoid radical skepticism? Is it true that my method for examining the evidence for these claims must be the same as my method for examining the phenomena of history? The credibility of the witness plays a very large role in second-hand testimony be it current affairs or the facts of history. The gospel of Thomas is a perfect example. According to this witness, Jesus made live birds from His clay ones. In another case, He smote a child with death. In another case, Jesus strikes critics of his parents with blindness. How are we to think about these claims? Are we even open to the possibility that they could be correct? When we first encounter them on the page, are we not repulsed and do we not find them repugnant? And we do so even without bothering to examine the evidence. How can we do this? We can do this because we already have enough evidence before us that has proven itself reliable and therefore we know that any counterevidence must be false.

Empirical evidence for an empirical truth-claim is after all something that any rational human being would expect. It seems reasonable enough to me. We are not, like Hume, ruling out the possibility of the miraculous based on some presupposition. We are Christian theists, after all, presupposing the truth of God. Hence, we not only argue for the possibility of the miraculous, we argue for its actuality. Hays’s attempt to associate our view with Hume is clearly an ad hominem. Hays would claim that we are ruling out miracles based on our theological bias. But that would not quite be true either. It would be closer to say that we rule out “faith healers” and “miracle workers” based on theological bias. But one would have to ask if that is really true. Let’s say that genuine faith healers and miracle workers continued in unbroken fashion down to present day. Would Hays presume that cessationists would hold to their view despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary? The Bible is true. To deny such irrefutable evidence would be irrational and incongruent with Scripture. It would make Scripture out to be a lie. 

There is a remarkable difference between being good discerners, being good critical thinkers, and being radical skeptics. Hays loves to muddy the water with such techniques and tactics when he argues. Perhaps this is why one writer says arguing with him is like arguing with a 4-year old. I would not go that far, but I would say that these discussions should always be in a spirit of Charity and mutual respect. That does not mean we should avoid pointing out the nature of the error and its consequences. But it does mean that we should not resort to name-calling, to straw men, or to comparing God-fearing men to radical God-hating skeptics like David Hume. I am certain that such behavior between Christians, even on a blog is a clear violation of Christian principles. And if you can’t defend Christian truth and your own position without violating such simple Christian principles, perhaps you shouldn't be trying to defend them at all.

Apostolic Sign Gifts: An Inadequate Hermeneutic Generates Inferior Exegesis

“Noncessationists and other fringe evangelical subgroups who have been uneasy with trying to defend their systems from the Bible have taken advantage of the new hermeneutical subjectivism to present for the first time a biblical defense for what they believe. That is why so many new “isms” like noncessationism are cropping up among evangelicals. The new “isms” are difficult to deal with because evangelicals have as yet to isolate the root cause of the deviations: a change in principles of interpretation.” [Thomas, The Hermeneutics of Noncessationism, TMS Journal]

The question that has served as the topic of interest as of late is one that has been asked and answered before. That question is approached quite differently today by some in the neo-reformed camp. These men, having been influenced by modern hermeneutics, unwittingly rush to the defense of a system that places the entire foundation of the Christian Church at risk. The bedrock of human knowledge rests upon a distinctly Christian epistemology. Any belief that touches on this area has the potential to influence Christian thought at its most basic level. Since a distinctly Christian epistemology is revelational in nature, any shift in how Christian theology understands the nature of revelation will unavoidably touch the Christian’s views on epistemology. I am hopeful that this will become even more apparent as I deal with some of Steve Hays’s defense of Pentecostal theology.

The impact of Hays’s hermeneutic on his exegesis is felt immediately in how he reads 1 Cor. 15:8. Hays says, “By his [Paul] own admission, his apostleship was somewhat anomalous.” Hays interprets a passage that deals with resurrection appearances as one that supposedly treats Paul’s apostleship. Concerning this text, Anthony Thiselton writes,

The emphasis lies not simply on Paul’s place among the witnesses, and it is not primarily, if at all, a defense of his apostleship as such (against P. von Osten-Sacken; with Murphy-O’Connor and Mitchell). The emphasis lies in the undeserved grace of God (explicated further on v. 10), who chooses to give life and new creation to those reckoned as dead, or, in Paul’s case, both a miscarried, aborted foetus whose stance had been hostile to Christ and to the new people of God. [Thiselton, NIGTC, I Corinthians]

Hays takes 1 Cor. 12 to mean that any “garden-variety Christians could work miracles.” But is this what Paul said? Surely it is not! Paul’s focus is not on individual gifts but on the purpose and source of these gifts. They are given by the Holy Spirit for the corporate body of believers. He says nothing about who the recipients are or can be, only that the dispersing of them is under the sovereign discretion of God. It is evident that a modern attitude, influenced by modern hermeneutics and in this case, Pentecostal theology, are driving Hays’s exegesis.

Hays points out that we must recognize that the terminology of “signs and wonders” is tied to the deliverance of Israel. For Hays, these miracles serve as a model of sorts. But this is odd coming from Hays. Such a model seemingly lends itself to the cessationist position. The New Covenant is ushered in with the sign of Joel the prophet, like a trumpet sounding God’s new program. The significance of the Apostolic period is that Christ had ushered in the New Covenant and God provided irrefutable evidence to that end by signs, and wonders, and miraculous events. But these signs pointed to something far greater. They were the trumpet that sounded the new message, the message of hope, of life, the message that Messiah had come and redemption had arrived. Failure to interpret these works of God through this grid does irreparable harm to the entire plan of God’s redemptive acts in history.

Hays then asserts,

“There's also the matter of how cessationism needs to define its terms or classify the charismata. Cessationism denies modern prophecy. That includes God speaking to people or through people as well as revelatory dreams and visions. So cessationism must define or classify prophetic phenomena of this sort as miraculous signs or sign-gifts.”

Hays’s problem seems to rest with his hermeneutic. He is lost in the forest when what he needs to do is ask higher-level questions about the purpose and timing of the charismata, rising above the tree tops and looking down to see what is going on in terms of God’s redemptive program at this time in history. He seems to want to view this period through the same grid with which he views his own. Such an approach can only result in unfortunate error, as is becoming more and more evident.

Hays contends that cessationism must index the sign-gifts to the apostles in order for them to terminate when the apostles die off. This is simply not true. That men were gifted with sign-gifts who were not apostles is clear. That these gifts continued until their own death is likely, even if that death occurred after the apostles died. What is asserted is that the gifts ceased to function soon after the last apostles died because those who had been sanctioned under the apostles died. Can you imagine if God endowed men who were outside apostolic sanction to perform the identical miracles of the apostles and the two groups advertised contradictory doctrine or messages? How would such a state of affairs not produce utter chaos? These are exactly the kind of concerns that Hays disregards because they advance unresolvable difficulties that continuationists are scarcely prepared to remedy.

Hays argues that the fact that other men were endowed with these gifts ipso facto means that they were not unique to the apostles and therefore there is no logical way to argue they disappeared or should have disappeared after the apostles passed off the scene. What Hays seems to forget is that this scheme for understanding the gifts was brought about by the historical fact that this is in fact what happened. A driving factor for this interpretation is the fact that historically speaking, these gifts passed off the scene. This puzzling historical fact contributed to our understanding of the purpose for these signs in the first place. Understood through that context, it makes perfect sense. Does Hays think that we adopted this interpretation because we don’t like miracles or healings or that we would not like to be able to give the gospel in perfect French without having to study it? It is the facts of history and the truth of Scripture that drives us to these conclusions, not some predisposed rejection of the possibility of miracles.

Hays makes another strange argument,

“A related problem with the cessationist claim is that NT miracles aren't confined to "sign-gifts." For instance, revelatory dreams and visions are private rather than public revelation. Only the individual recipient is directly privy to this experience. As such, you can't say the only function of miracles is to legitimate the message or the messenger. For divine authentication would only work if the accreditation process was open to public inspection.”

But there are no such private revelations given that we know about. Why is this? Because all of them that we know about are recorded in Scripture and as such, they are public revelation and this means they are signs. And if they are truly private, then we don’t know about them. Hays’s reasoning in this regard is indeed puzzling. Mary’s encounter with Gabriel was private to her at the time, but we all know about it. And we know about it for a reason! God made sure of it. When God reveals private things, such as dreams to someone and that fact is recorded in Scripture, they are no longer private. Hays’s hermeneutic takes on a hyper-individualistic flavor here. He focuses on the individual encounter when what he should focus on is God’s program. Why did God do this and for whose benefit? Why is it recorded in Scripture? Moreover, is the individual perspective the one we should focus on or is it the fact that God has acted in this manner in order to reveal His works to the community of believers at large? This is group-think versus the individual. Hays continues to focus on the individual and I think this is the product of American culture.

It is interesting that Hays would interpret Warfield the way he does. He interrupts Warfield as if to force a view onto Warfield that Warfield himself is plainly contradicting. And then he accuses Warfield of skating over the counterevidence. If Hays hopes to argue for no distinction between the signs wrought by apostles and those wrought by non-apostles, the Samaritan account dashes his hopes to shreds. The ability to impart the Holy Spirit, Who is the sign and seal of the New Covenant, seems to be something that only the apostles were capable of doing. (Acts 8:14-17) In addition, Hays makes a false distinction between apostles and non-apostles. It is better if we make the distinction between apostolically sanctioned versus non-apostolically sanctioned. The nature of the relationship between the signs and wonders of NT ministry and the NT faith, the tradition, the message, what came to be the sacred writings, cannot itself be overemphasized. We have a new message authenticated by the miracles of the Messiah's closest disciples. Jesus came on the scene demonstrating His own divinity, and He selected exactly these men to hear and proclaim His message. He enabled these men and their trusted delegates to signify the authoritative nature of their message with signs and wonders. These were not ordinary men carrying an ordinary message. Quite the contrary! While we cannot draw dogmatic conclusions about the apostolic imparting of the gift of the Holy Spirit, we must at a minimum acknowledge that Luke recorded this event for a reason and that God reveals it to us all for a reason. 

The signs wrought in the NT, beginning with Christ, to and beyond Pentecost are best understood in light of the initiation of the New Covenant. They were not to draw attention to themselves, which is what most Pentecostals think. They were not given to entertain or to leave the crowd dazzled, which is again, how many Pentecostals think. The “signs and wonders” were predicted to be the phenomena that would signify the ushering in of a New Covenant. God would now pour out His Spirit on ALL flesh. Salvation would be provided for ALL races in Christ. Redemption in Christ through faith for all men would now be the message proclaimed by God’s Holy Messengers. With the New Covenant comes a new standard, a new revelation by which we are all to know, and live and trust the Messiah. The Apostles were entrusted with that message as God’s authoritative messengers. The sign of tongues was given to the 120, then to the Samaritans, the Gentiles, and finally John’s disciples as a sign that ALL races would be saved without distinction. The same gift of the Holy Spirit given to the Apostles and Jews was given to the other groups. Why tongues? In truth, we cannot be sure. We may say that God’s great curse of the races centered on the sign of language creating division, and now His great blessing of unity across the races centered also on the sign of language. There is more that could be said about that, but such is beyond the scope of this post.

We must see the NT age in light of God’s program from Genesis to Revelation. God gives us a revelation that brings with it objective clarity. There is no radical subjectivity, or arbitrariness, no hedonistic focus on the individual. God is doing something new at Pentecost and it is the last time He will do so until He does something new and permanent at the Parousia, when His Kingdom appears once and for all.

The Gifts that Are Not and Extra Biblical Revelation in Pentecostal Theology

We keep hearing about John MacArthur’s Strange Fire conference coming up in November and how all the Pentecostal folks and their sympathizers are distressed over the issue of the continuation of certain gifts within the Christian Church. I have written a few blogs about this controversy and have had an opportunity to interact with Steve Hays over at Triablogue on the subject. I categorize Hays as a sympathizer of Pentecostal theology given his statements and his apparent theological paradigm.

There are two basic issues I want to point out in this blog. One concerns the question of spiritual gifts in the body of Christ and the other considers that nature of revelation, extra biblical and otherwise.

First of all, I think it is necessary to point out that there are a number of gifts that God has placed in the body of Christ, all for her spiritual growth and edification. The spiritual gifts are mentioned in a number of passages in the New Testament. Romans 12:6-8 lists out the following: prophecy, service, teaching, exhortation, giving, leading, and mercy. Paul lists more in 1 Cor. 12:8-10: wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, effecting of miracles, prophecy, discernment of spirits, kinds of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues. Paul lists out apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in Eph. 4:11. So we have a list of gifts that God has placed in the Church in order to produce the kind of change and perform the kind of work He desires to perform within this community.

Now that we can see that God has placed gifts in the Church for the overall purpose of her spiritual growth and maturity, the next question naturally leads to specific gifts. What are these gifts? What were they designed to accomplish? As an example, let’s look at the gift of diverse languages. It is a mistake to interpret “tongues” as some supernatural language. The Greek word to describe this phenomenon is the same Greek word used to describe languages. It is used 50 times in the NT, 168 times in the LXX, 13 times by the Apostolic Fathers, 101 times in Philo, and hundreds of times in the Classics. While it does not always mean languages that is its predominant sense. Acts 2 clearly informs us that the languages spoken on Pentecost are real languages. The gift of tongues is not unintelligible broken syllables that no human can understand. In addition, any human being is capable of producing or mimicking this modern phenomenon practiced by Pentecostals. There is nothing miraculous about it. That is to say that it does nothing to set God apart or prove anything that intelligible language cannot do a superior job of proving itself. In addition, the practice is highly irrational. It simply makes no sense. But it is supposed to be edifying. How does speaking gibberish edify me? 

The NT phenomena and the modern phenomena are clearly not the same. This is where we begin to answer our question whether or not these gifts are still being given in the Church. If we no longer see them in use, we might ponder the purpose of these gifts when they were in operation. For instance, an apostle had a completely different function and purpose than an elder. Apostleship is no longer a gift that men receive. There were a select few given that gift, called to that office. This would naturally lead to the question of what purpose that office served given the fact that it no longer exists. The same is true of any of these gifts.

Another issue with modern tongues is the notion that it is the evidence that one has been filled with the Holy Spirit. Exegetically speaking, this is not difficult to prove in the ancient Church. The correlation is undeniable. If Pentecostal theology is right, there are a lot of us who claim to know Christ but who are not even filled the Spirit. Are the continuationists prepared to go down this road? Of course they’re not. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to argue for the continuation of the gifts but also argue that Pentecostal theology is wrong about tongues. I’m sorry, but they can’t have it both ways. When NT believers were filled with the Spirit, they spoke in tongues. Why don’t we speak in tongues when we are filled with the Spirit? The continuationist who is also non-Pentecostal is left to do extreme exegetical gyrations in their typical answers.

I simply draw your attention to this issue to point out that most of the Christian Church has always believed that some gifts were permanent while others were temporary. The argument over how we arrive at which gifts are permanent and which ones are temporary is really one of semantics from my perspective. Tongues mysteriously stopped happening for some reason. From the beginning, the individual never acquired this ability. The individual passively received this supernatural ability to speak in other languages. The event was initiated by God. No one was going around seeking to speak in tongues, praying for this to happen to them. God was in charge of the process end to end. And for some reason, God stopped endowing people with this gift. What are we supposed to say? Did the Church just decide she would no longer accept this ability from God? The same is true with miracles and faith healers. For some reason, the ability vanished. This isn’t to say that God stopped healing people entirely. That is not the argument at all. But that men like Paul, Peter, and others would come into a town and perform numerous undeniable miracles and healings continued to happen throughout Church history is simply contrary to the facts.

So the argument for the continuation of these gifts has first to establish what these gifts actually were. As far as I can tell, Pentecostal theology has it wrong when it comes to their most basic gift, tongues. They make numerous hermeneutical leaps in their effort to defend this phenomenon. We simply cannot accept the claim that the modern Pentecostal practice is equivalent to the one experienced in the ancient Church. In addition, if it is accepted that modern tongues are in fact the same as those in the ancient Church, we are then left with no recourse, but to accept the Pentecostal teaching that it is the initial evidence that one has been filled with the Spirit. You see, we cannot cut the debate off in the abstract. We must also examine the experiential side of the equation if we are to discover the truth regarding this question. This is why we demand proof that healings and miracles are in fact legitimate. Method is critically important in this discussion. We are not arguing for Christian theism. We are not asserting the existence of the non-material God who is our Creator. Our method is very different for examining the truth claims of Pentecostal theology.

The argument coming from sympathizers like Hays is filled with contradictions and I am certain that most Pentecostals would tell Hays NOT to do them any favors. Steve Hays desires to defend Pentecostal theology but he doesn’t want to have to speak in tongues to be Spirit-filled. He wants to argue, in theory that healings and miracles have continued without missing a beat even though he has never encountered a faith healer or miracle worker himself. Based off that sort of reasoning, we are left without any recourse, but to accept the claims of alien abductions as well. Those who argue this way want to defend the on-going practice and possibility of tongues, healings, and miracles but without having to subject it to empirical verification. However, we cannot leave out empirical verification because it is essential to understanding the phenomena and comparing it to what we see in Scripture. The men that Hays and I both would call charlatans, most Pentecostals defend as prophets, apostles, and men of God. The excesses that Hays mentions, most Pentecostals call Spirit-filled worship. Very few Pentecostals see the practices of the larger segment of Pentecostalism as excesses. Hays is missing his target. In addition, Pentecostal hermeneutics and theology naturally lead to what Hays and others call excesses. The subjective nature and experiential orientation of Pentecostal theology is powerless to offer a critique of such practices. Once you open the door to such experiential leanings and to extra biblical revelation, just about anything can walk in under the guise of a “movement of God.”

Extra Biblical Revelation

The Westminster Confession states, “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.” It was the fall of man that made way for the need of a special word from God. The consequences of sin amputated man from fellowship with and hearing from His God. Man, by nature, corrupts the revelation of God given to him in nature and in conscience. He does this willingly and naturally. He is a natural born enemy of God. The revelation of God comes to him clearly, and his reaction to that revelation is to pervert, to corrupt, and to reshape it. Two things are needed if man is to relate to His God rightly. Man needs a change of nature, and God must speak to Him. Otherwise, man is hopelessly lost without any hope of truly knowing and relating to God.

Calvin says regarding God and Scripture, “…what we ought to think of him is set forth there, lest we seek some uncertain deity by devious paths.” [Institutes] What we think about God, how we see Him, who He is, what He is, what He is like, is all set forth for us in plain view in sacred Scripture. A right understanding of Scripture is essential to a right understanding of God. A poor hermeneutic has continually led men to heresy more than any other single factor. Pentecostal hermeneutics are highly subjective, based on individual experience. The Pentecostal looks at Scripture through the grid of experience and interprets the experiences and teachings in Scripture through the grid of their own experience. This has continually led to devastating error and even heresy in Pentecostal denominations.

Calvin continues, “Hence the Scriptures obtain full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living words of God were heard.” [Institutes] To the liberal, this is utter folly. To the Pentecostal, Scripture is clearly not enough. The experience of extra biblical revelation is in every case to be sought. Why? We have the miracle of the text! The Pentecostal wants Paul’s experience for himself. He is not satisfied to take from Paul what Paul took from the hand of Christ. That just won’t do!

God alone is sufficient witness to Himself in His Word. He needs no other witness to defend His own truth. The Holy Spirit seals this truth upon the hearts and minds of God’s children. God is His own witness and His witness is sufficient in itself. If this is true of the revelation of Scripture, then reasons the Pentecostal, it is true of God’s revelation to me. And they are right! If in fact God reveals to men today, then that revelation is just as self-justifying, and self-authenticating, and authoritative as Scripture. And this is the crux of the problem. Open this door and anything may slither in among the saints to consume, to deceive, and to devour.

The Revelation of Scripture is absolutely necessary if man is to know and relate to God. Turretin makes a keen observation to this end, “It was necessary for a written word to be given to the church that the canon of true religious faith might be constant and unmoved; that it might easily be preserved pure and entire against the weakness of memory, the depravity of men and the shortness of life; that it might be more certainly defended from the frauds and corruptions of Satan; that it might more conveniently not only be sent to the absent and widely separated, but also be transmitted to posterity.” [Institutes] How can we know that Benny Hinn did not receive a legitimate revelation that God has disclosed to him but to no one in Scripture? If we affirm the possibility of extra biblical revelation, I do not see how we can judge the claims these men make, to be false without at the same time engaging in a level of arbitrariness foreign to all rational thought. Even if we arbitrarily assert that all new revelation must be examined in light of Scripture, there is enough not revealed in Scripture that enormous error could ensue and we would have no exegetically rational way of refuting it. This development is both intellectually unappealing and spiritually perilous.

Deut. 29:29 informs us that the secret things, the things that are unrevealed, belong to God but the things revealed to us are ours forever. What is revealed? In this case, it was the written Law of Moses. The implication is that what is written is what is revealed, and what is not written is not revealed. Moreover, what is not revealed is secret. And if it is secret, it belongs to the Lord. Our concern is with what has been revealed, not what has been kept back, kept secret. God has told us that what He did not reveal belongs to Him. Everything that has not been given to us in the sacred writings belongs to this class of unrevealed, secret things that belong to the Lord, not to us. That is a fact of revelation, a principle of revelation that we must humbly recognize with all sincerity.

This whole question is a question of epistemology. How do we know and what is our final authority for knowing? Either we have a closed canon and a final authoritative revelation that serves as the basis for knowing truth or we do not. There is no middle ground. The cessationist can say that what we must be concerned with is understanding and rightly interpreting the revelation of God in Scripture. That is our guide. It is our final answer to every question. If the thing we seek is unrevealed, then it belongs to the Lord. Who can know it but God alone? The word of God was given to sanctify, to perform a work in us by revealing to us the Will of our Heavenly Father. It is enough that this revelation should occupy our thoughts, that we should read it, absorb it, understand it, and live it.

If I allow the extra biblical principle in Pentecostal theology, I am indeed in quicksand without any escape from any of the outrageous claims that supposedly come through those revelations. A man may hear that God wants him to divorce his Baptist or Presbyterian wife and marry a fellow Pentecostal who will follow him in his supposed Holy Ghost filled ecstatic utterances. Who are we to say he is wrong. We may say you cannot divorce her because of Paul. He will retort that Paul was speaking of a general situation where the man never heard from God. But I have heard from God and therefore, I must obey! How shall we respond to this person? They have a word from God as sure as any word from God written down in Scripture.

I have said that our method for examining this question is both exegetical and empirical. It is exegetical from the standpoint that we must understand the nature of the gifts given in Scripture and how the Church used those gifts for ministry and for edification. It is empirical in the sense that these claims are physical in nature and can be subjected to empirical testing. We can see if a healing has taken place or if a person can actually speak in a foreign language supernaturally. I have also said that when we remove the ultimate authority of Scripture, which is itself divine revelation, and allow for extra biblical revelation apart from Scripture, we nullify the final authority of Scripture and land in a sea of arbitrariness and subjectivity. We lose our ability to distinguish true extra biblical revelations from false ones.

I have also said that if we measure extra biblical revelation by the standard of Scripture, contending that such revelations must always be in line with Scripture, they become superfluous at best. On the other hand, if extra biblical revelation is not superfluous and God really is participating in on-going revelation, the canon should never have been closed and we are now faced with the impossibility of falsifying any of these claims. In other words, the Pentecostal claims to extra biblical revelation and the revelations themselves are in the last word, not defeasible. This is a real dilemma for theology. In fact, how is theology even possible if such a state of affairs has truly obtained?